Support NeoGAF

[Lognor]

I'm not saying it'll happen for sure but these subscriptions have to gain enough subscribers 1st before we can fully judge them. Some say Netflix's quality has gone down over the years with just a few golden nuggets here and there

Well, to your point, they have to get more subscribers. And how would they do that if their game quality started to drop off? It makes no sense.

Even the Netflix example doesn't make much sense. The Power of the Dog was an Oscar nominated movie that recently released on Netflix. So was Tick Tock Boom. As was Don't look Up. I could go on. Is there a lot of filler? Sure, but there is still great content. We've had this discussion on whether there will be bad filler on Game Pass. There very likely will since there is bad filler on PS Now, the PS+ game selection, the PS Store, the Nintendo eshop, Steam, Epic Store, etc etc etc. Microsoft won't be immune to that, even though they do a great job with the curation. But in addition to that filler, there will be great content too. Like you said, they need subscribers! You get that through great content!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

it is, because mr. ryan said not so long ago he was going to offer something to compete with gamepass, and this is a joke compared to it.

This isn't it.

 

[Swift_Star]

it is, because mr. ryan said not so long ago he was going to offer something to compete with gamepass, and this is a joke compared to it.

Source? You're a xbox gamer only, this service and playstation means nothing to you.

 

[JLB]

Source? You're a xbox gamer only, this service and playstation means nothing to you.

pay me for google it or do it yourself and follow any link on first page.

 

[Amiga]

They won’t see a large enough financial return, so they’d have to spend less on them, which would result in lower quality games.
Sony spend a lot more on average for their AAA games than Microsoft, and currently have fewer monetisation options.

I currently buy most of Sony’s output. They’d make a lot less money from me if I subscribed to Extra. I’d love to save hundreds, but that’s bad business for Sony, so I get it.

Same way Netflix isn't going to make several $200 million budget movies for day1 launch on the streaming service.

 

[kingfey]

That is what we are saying here.

If you put a game day one in a sub service the development budget for it needs to heavy decreased.
That is basically what we don't want with PlayStation games.

It is not like Sony needs to throw money to gain market share.

Subscription service can recoup the cost of the game.
But what it cant recoup, is the bonuses and the extra money the big heads will get.
So far, only 2 companies have surpassed the $250m cost mark for games. Take 2 with Rockstar. Mainly due to the cost of labor, and the open world. And Starcitizen.
No game costs more than $250m to make for now.

Jim is coming from bonuses angle, since he didnt rule out future day1 games for the subscription. Considering the cost will be higher in the future.
Subscription service works, as long as you allow to sell the games. You will earn both world. The real question is, Are the suits ready to ditch their bonuses?

 

[JLB]

Source? You're a xbox gamer only, this service and playstation means nothing to you.

btw its funny that mr ethomaz adds a fire emoji to your comment when he lives bitching xbox.
oh the

 

[oldergamer]

I'm not saying it'll happen for sure but these subscriptions have to gain enough subscribers 1st before we can fully judge them. Some say Netflix's quality has gone down over the years with just a few golden nuggets here and there

Netflix intentionally decided they needed less hit franchises https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...nts-to-be-cancelling-more-shows-a7767016.html

Don't confuse intention change with unintentional.

 

[ethomaz]

Subscription service can recoup the cost of the game.
But what it cant recoup, is the bonuses and the extra money the big heads will get.
So far, only 2 companies have surpassed the $250m cost mark for games. Take 2 with Rockstar. Mainly due to the cost of labor, and the open world. And Starcitizen.
No game costs more than $250m to make for now.

Jim is coming from bonuses angle, since he didnt rule out future day1 games for the subscription. Considering the cost will be higher in the future.
Subscription service works, as long as you allow to sell the games. You will earn both world. The real question is, Are the suits ready to ditch their bonuses?

I believe you have no ideia how much AAA game costs nowdays.
I don't think less than $100 million is considered AAA anymore... just AA.

 

[Swift_Star]

pay me for google it or do it yourself and follow any link on first page.

So he never said that. Still, I don't know why this matters to you.
You have no intention on getting into the PS ecosystem... This is all meaningless to you.
Why are you bitching over stuff you have no intention of buying?
and lol at getting triggered over an emoji ffs.

 

[THE DUCK]

He's pretty spot on here. 1st party games should be of the quality that make you want to shell out the cash for. If you spend $10 for a month of gamepass and one and done it, there's no reason for you to come back to it.

It's actually interesting how Sony and MS view their 1st party stuff.

I don't think this is true at all, many of us buy games after playing them on gamepass. Or if we plan on staying on gamepass, why couldn't we go back an play a game that is good?
Just because a person might be inclined to "prepay" for their games on a monthly system doesn't mean they don't want quality or that the games won't be quality.
The idea that only owned entertainment can be quality is flawed, all the streaming TV and movie companies are fighting right this very moment for market share with as much quality as they can acquire to rip customers away or keep them.

The bottom line is, be it owned games or a subscription service, quality does matter, or the value to the consumer is diminished and they will move away.

 

[kingfey]

I believe you have no ideia how much AAA game costs nowdays.

I understand the general cost. All I need to look at is rockstar. Since they are the only one who basically makes the most expensive games in the industry.

Unless you think, Naughty dog have more developers and manpower compared to Rockstar.

 

[ethomaz]

I understand the general cost. All I need to look at is rockstar. Since they are the only one who basically makes the most expensive games in the industry.

Unless you think, Naughty dog have more developers and manpower compared to Rockstar.

They are not the one.

$316m Cyberpunk 2077
$250m Modern Warfare 2

BTW these are official figures and not estimates like in the GTAV case (MW2 not even accounts for the inflation).
And you said Naughty Dogs... I'm sure TLOU2 is closer to $200 million than $100 million.

That budget is suppose to increase every year... probably already increased a lot with the mess the petroleum made in the economy.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Perhaps?

But that's kinda my issue. The lack of forward-looking risk-taking (the kind of risks that got them in this position! Spending hundreds of millions on prestige titles was a really bold move) makes me think they're acting too cautiously.

I suppose it's never too late to catch up with a proven brand like Playstation, but they just seem complacent to me in this area.

However, their push into service games is aggressive, so maybe I'm overreacting.

I'd rather them do what they're doing by focusing on the games than trying to create "Netflix" for the game industry

 

[remember_spinal]

im not sure why people keep comparing sony and microsoft, they are not the same size company.

Whats viable for one doesn’t apply to the other

 

[kingfey]

I believe you have no ideia how much AAA game costs nowdays.
I don't think less than $100 million is considered AAA anymore... just AA.

Depending on who you hire to make those games.
Most of the cost goes to employees salary (The higher the salary, the higher the cost of the game), hiring 3rd party studios for support, which increases the cost of the game.
But the most money draining would be project management. Most games take alot of time to make. Without clear goal, and manageable product, you will be spending alot of money paying money to 3rd parties, and employees to finish the game.

Most studios have in-house game engine, which lowers the cost, compared to using 3rd party engine, which will increase the game's production.

Edit: 2nd reply.

 

[Amiga]

He's right. You look at Forza and Halo's engagement numbers and they are around 20 million each, and yet neither game finished above top 20 in NPD. Forza was literally ranked 20th and Halo was nowhere to be found after charting 2nd in December.

Meanwhile Miles was ranked 6th in its SECOND year on the market. Mario Kark ranked 7th in its 7th year on the market. MS can eat that loss of sales because their main business is services and they make billions in profits every month from other products. Sony cant. Sony only makes money from their insurance business, and playstation. Everything else loses money or breaks even other than maybe cameras. They rely on Horizon, GT7 and GOW selling $300-500 million worth of copies in the first year each. Thats a billion to $1.5 billion in lost revenue.

This whole subscription nonsense is making people think services are more important than games. No, games ARE the product. You dont go to a Michelin Star resturnat for their service. You go there for their food. The food is the product. The Chef is the product. No one gives a shit about the waiters or bus boys. Sony studios are becoming very unproductive taking 5 fucking years to make last gen games. They cant afford to give them away for $10 a month. If a studio costs $20 million per year to run that's $100 million for one game. The marketing costs are typically the same as production costs so we are looking at $200 million products. They cannot survive in a streaming model.

What might end up happening is what we are seeing on Disney. Especially the Marvel stuff. 6 episode long seasons. 30 minute episodes. I grew up watching 24 episodes a season. At least HBO has 10-12 hour long episodes. WTF is this half an hour 6 episode bullshit. How would this work in gaming? DLCs every year instead of full games? Episodic trash? MS had to go buy COD and Bethesda for literally $80 billion just to fill their empty months on gamepass. Sony doesnt have that kind of money.

I am glad Sony is treating this shit like an afterthought. Focus should be on making games, not services.

PS+1(let's call that pleasssss!) can compete without day1 launch.
- improve the backlog library. Don't wait until an interest in a game zeroes out before putting it on the service. pay a little extra and make subscribers feel they got a good deal.
- Need to regularly have some month 3/ month 6 from launch games. after this much time the hype is dead, the game got most of the full price sales it's going to get.
- consistently look for opportunities for day1 quality games that may not have the mass attention like Disco Elysium, or Kana.
- Remake all the good PS classics, give Jack and Sly the R&C treatment.

 

[Dream-Knife]

It wouldn't make sense because they charge $70 a game, and people will sign up for PS+ anyway. It's free money.

 

[kingfey]

They are not the one.

$316m Cyberpunk 2077
$250m Modern Warfare 2

BTW these are official figures and not estimates like in the GTAV case (MW2 not even accounts for the inflation).
And you said Naughty Dogs... I'm sure TLOU2 is closer to $200 million than $100 million.

That budget is suppose to increase every year... probably already increased a lot with the mess the petroleum made in the economy.

Cyberpunk2077 had 8 years run for the game to finish. That is alot for a single game. There is also the scrapped original product, which increases the cost of the game.
Modern warfare 2 marketing took alot of money. The game cost around 40m-50m to make.

Naughty dog outsourced 14 studios. And with how much they pay their workers, it makes sense to be closer to $200m.

The salary is what determines the cost of the game. The higher the salary, the higher the cost.

 

[EDMIX]

I'm just pointing out to that user that they're immediately agreeing with something as a fact for one party and at the same time biting for time for the other

Well they moved 20 plus million units on several titles last generation, its completely proven that some value exist with those titles that would be decreased if day 1 on some service.

It is the streaming service that has to prove its models success, not the box copy bud.

So because other publishers are not moving such massive numbers, it makes more sense for them to go that service route, but to those that are moving record, massive units, it might not make that much sense. Again, one is proven to move those mega units, the other model is still in the air on if it can sustain itself. So yea, I'd take what is being stated as a fact as you are debating against what? 20 million for Spiderman, God Of War, Horizon etc why would the want less of that? To what benefit to get less money? None of that sounds like a fucking claim or something, that sounds very logical that one should expect to make less if those are offered on some service day 1

 

[ethomaz]

Cyberpunk2077 had 8 years run for the game to finish. That is alot for a single game. There is also the scrapped original product, which increases the cost of the game.
Modern warfare 2 marketing took alot of money. The game cost around 40m-50m to make.

Naughty dog outsourced 14 studios. And with how much they pay their workers, it makes sense to be closer to $200m.

The salary is what determines the cost of the game. The higher the salary, the higher the cost.

That has nothing to do with what I said.
The reason for it be that expensive is indeed the salary or others expenses but the reason is unimportant.

The fact it is in that level already shows you how much it cost to make AAA games today... after all you don't make AAA games without employees.

AAA costs a lot like I said.
If Sony put these AAA games day one on a subscription service they will end not covering the expenses.
That is what Jimbo is saying.

You are trying to find a spin that games are not expensive to made but that spin doesn't exists for AAA... if you don't go with higher budget it is not AAA and if it is not AAA then the chances to the money not be enough to reach the quality level expect of an AAA game are extreme high.

 

[RoboFu]

Then it’s a not a game pass competitor. Simple as that.

 

[Hobbygaming]

I think he has a point. I don't think Playstation has enough studios to feed a consistent stream of games, at least not right now and not all AAA games through out the year. Look at Netflix, they had to build up their studios to be able to produce content regularly. Look at XBox, you can't HONESTLY tell me that they've had a consistent stream of content... BUT they will. They've also been good about paying 3rd party studios to put games on GP to fill the gaps that they just can't fill right now. Even Xbox understands that every release can't be AAA, you need filler, you need to give the devs time.

Playstation's will need to add many more studios or create smaller studios within their big ones to fill the gaps in AAA titles. Or cut budgets on AAA titles so that they come out quicker therefore making them AA tiles or somethings.

PlayStation has been quietly increasing their workforce to get quality games out quicker. But they're still focused on quality AAA which is great imo

 

[SSfox]

People begging for everything goes free, then don't be surprising when most your new games are gonna be shitty quality.

 

[SSfox]

Then it’s a not a game pass competitor. Simple as that.

Welp then that's great news, cause no Playstation user ever wanted a gamepass thing on Playstation.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

I love all the people here acting like putting them on Day 1 would somehow lower their quality or budget. It hasn't for Game Pass, it wouldn't for Playstation. But you guys just keep basking in the glow of almighty Sony who never makes a mistake instead of wanting them to improve the value for the consumer.

The only reason he's saying they "could suffer" is because they aren't doing it and want people to still subscribe to this service as well as buy $70 games. There has never been any logical argument or thought that would even slightly imply subscription services would lower the quality of games, it's just people who have an aversion to all things Xbox or all things subscription (or both)

 

[kingfey]

That has nothing to do with what I said.
The reason for it be that expensive is indeed the salary or others expenses but the reason is unimportant.

The fact it is in that level already shows you how much it cost to make AAA games today... after all you don't make AAA games without employees.

AAA costs a lot like I said.

The employee numbers matters, in order to determine the cost of AAA game.
Bethesda doesnt have the same as Rockstar devs. Yet both companies make AAA games. Thus they cant have close numbers in term of the game budget.
AAA cost will vary from dev to dev. Depend on how they utilize the devs they have.
And remember, Most studios have their own engine. They wont pay 3rd party to rent their engine.
The external cost would be hiring famous people, like kojima does. Mocap from 3rd party, unless you own it. and lastly hiring 3rd party studios for support.

Then there is the marketing department. This section depends on how famous your game is. The more famous it is, the more coverage it will get. Its why Modern warfare 2 had that $200m money tag.

 

[ethomaz]

The employee numbers matters, in order to determine the cost of AAA game.
Bethesda doesnt have the same as Rockstar devs. Yet both companies make AAA games. Thus they cant have close numbers in term of the game budget.
AAA cost will vary from dev to dev. Depend on how they utilize the devs they have.
And remember, Most studios have their own engine. They wont pay 3rd party to rent their engine.
The external cost would be hiring famous people, like kojima does. Mocap from 3rd party, unless you own it. and lastly hiring 3rd party studios for support.

Then there is the marketing department. This section depends on how famous your game is. The more famous it is, the more coverage it will get. Its why Modern warfare 2 had that $200m money tag.

AAA is based in how much cost a game to be made.
Games that doesn't reach that level are AA or lower tier... it is independent of how many employees you have.

AAA games tread to have better quality than others because they have more money to spend... that means more time, more man work, better tools, etc etc etc... they have more money to make the game true.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Welp then that's great news, cause no Playstation user ever wanted a gamepass thing on Playstation.

Playstation gamers don't want great games for less cost? Are you implying Playstation gamers are dumb? Because that seems kind of mean

 

[Hezekiah]

They won’t see a large enough financial return, so they’d have to spend less on them, which would result in lower quality games.
Sony spend a lot more on average for their AAA games than Microsoft, and currently have fewer monetisation options.

I currently buy most of Sony’s output. They’d make a lot less money from me if I subscribed to Extra. I’d love to save hundreds, but that’s bad business for Sony, so I get it.

Sony's production values are on a different level to their competitors.

 

[ethomaz]

Playstation gamers don't want great games for less cost? Are you implying Playstation gamers are dumb? Because that seems kind of mean

So now to want to buy the games we want to play and have better quality games become dumb lol

Sometimes I wonder why I stopped to sign Netflix after one year experience... maybe I'm dumb

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

People begging for everything goes free, then don't be surprising when most your new games are gonna be shitty quality.

I want to hear exactly how it will lead to shitty quality games, even though the opposite seems to be happening with Xbox's first party. It should be easy with the way it's parroted around here that Game Pass lowers the quality of games, just explain it to everybody here why we're so blind, and why subscription services would somehow lead to less money and less investment into first party when in fact the opposite is more likely. Go on we're all waiting

 

[SSfox]

Playstation gamers don't want great games for less cost? Are you implying Playstation gamers are dumb? Because that seems kind of mean

I think the dumb ones are the people that want to be able to buy a Ferrari with the same price of a Peugeot.

Also, not because MS can keep burning unlimited amount of money, that other companies can or should do the same.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

So now to want to buy the games we want to play and have better quality games become dumb lol

where did I say anything about better quality games? the games will remain exactly the same quality, so you just want tos pend more for less games, more power to you I guess

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

I think the dumb ones are the people that want to be able to buy a Ferrari with the same price of a Peugeot.

Also, not because MS can keep burning unlimited amount of money, that other companies can or should do the same.

They already aren't losing money on Game Pass, it's already sustainable, so that logic doesn't even hold up

 

[ethomaz]

Sony's production values are on a different level to their competitors.

Something that some guys here don't understand even after decades.
Everybody praises Sony's games for their quality but that is not lucky... it is because Sony put money in these projects... a lot of money... so they quality is always at top level (of course sometimes it doesn't work but there were very few exceptions).

While competition keeps saying "you can't create a Naught Dogs"... of course you if not Sony could not have a Naught Dogs at all... you have to put money in their projects.

You can't reach AAA like quality without AAA budget.

 

[ethomaz]

where did I say anything about better quality games? the games will remain exactly the same quality, so you just want tos pend more for less games, more power to you I guess

Maybe you start to believe that if you repeat on mirror all the time.

Without money there is no AAA quality.
I wonder why the car subscriptions services here in Brasil doesn't give a me Ferrari instead a common sedan after all the quality should be the same no matter how much I pay for the subscription bullshit.

 

[Hezekiah]

Just PR speak for we want your $70 still

And they shall have it

God of War Ragnorak next. Day one.

 

[Neofire]

About time jimmy boy has said something that makes sense.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

All I'm asking is for anybody to explain with any actual logic, "Why does being Day 1 on a subscription service mean quality will lessen?"
Nobody seems to want to try and answer that because they don't have any actual logic and are just making it up because they like Playstation exclusives better. Do you somehow think people would stop subscribing to a service that gets them Playstation exclusives Day 1? That would be a fuckton of money they'd be getting every month, where exactly would the loss of income or lower commitment to quality come from? Or is it just trying to not be viewed as a hypocrite after all these years of laughing at Game Pass because "every consumer is perpetually on an infinite amount of $1 conversions". Give me any modicum of logic or reason instead of just acting like it's an objective known fact

 

[ethomaz]

All I'm asking is for anybody to explain with any actual logic, "Why does being Day 1 on a subscription service mean quality will lessen?"

Because you get less money.
You don't invest the same amount to get less revenue at end.

It is that simple.
You could not understand but it is business 101.

 

[McCheese]

GT7s aggressive monetisation sort of makes a mockery of this statement.

 

[Exanthus]

Because you get less money.
You don't invest the same amount to get less revenue at end.

It is that simple.

I think you're full of shit. But each to there own.

 

[ethomaz]

I think you're full of shit. But each to there own.

I mean what that has to do with anything?

Just because business is like that you hate me lol

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Maybe you start to believe that if you repeat on mirror all the time.

Without money there is no AAA quality.
I wonder why the car subscriptions services here in Brasil doesn't give a me Ferrari instead a common sedan after all the quality should be the same no matter how much I pay for the subscription

That would explain how you've come to your conclusions. They'll get more money because the average gamer is more likely to subscribe than buy the amount of $60 games it would take to equal $180/year for Microsoft, thus lowering the amount that the enthusiasts (aka the people in this website) end up spending, and it removes margins from used games or physical copies. the average user is probably spending a little more money, but they're getting more games from it, and less of the money is going to retailers and resellers, which is a good thing as far as the gaming industry is concerned

 

[Leyasu]

Just an attempt to justify not doing it. The extra revenue that they will be making from their new service will already help alleviate the running costs if their studios etc. Subscribers will help pay for the games to be made, and then gladly pay full price because Jim convinced them that it is best for them.

Then they all run onto forums and social media to defend it, and shout down those of little faith lol. Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Because you get less money.
You don't invest the same amount to get less revenue at end.

It is that simple.
You could not understand but it is business 101.

How are they getting less money though? They get 100% of Game Pass revenue, as opposed to the much lower percentages they'd get on physical sales at retailers, digital sales of 3rd party games, and any renting or used game sales. So it's entirely possible for gamers to spend less money AND Microsoft to get more money from them, it's just taking away the cut from the middlemen

 

[Exanthus]

I mean what that has to do with anything?

Just because business is like that you hate me lol

Hate you? What are you talking about?

 

[ethomaz]

That would explain how you've come to your conclusions. They'll get more money because the average gamer is more likely to subscribe than buy the amount of $60 games it would take to equal $180/year for Microsoft, thus lowering the amount that the enthusiasts (aka the people in this website) end up spending, and it removes margins from used games or physical copies. the average user is probably spending a little more money, but they're getting more games from it, and less of the money is going to retailers and resellers, which is a good thing as far as the gaming industry is concerned

I will show you an example.

Your game have a budget of $200 million.

Games at day one sells a lot at full price... for exemple 5 million units will give you at day one $350 million in revenue.
You covered your costs and already have margin to start to profit.
Your next game will have a budget or $200m or more again and you already can start to work on it.

You put in a subscription service on say one... you get a very little parcel per month of the revenue based in how your game is played on the program.
You basically did not covered your costs at day one... you still needs to see if it will cover it in the next months or even years.
Your next game will probably have a lower budget because you don't want to face that situation again.

That is the reality that you seem to go blind.

 

[Krappadizzle]